You admit climate science is on the defensive, but say there is only "hearsay" that detractors may have behaved in a way that put them there? What about, say, multiple mass email hackings? Does that not count as supporting evidence that detractors are taking pot-shots at climate scientists? Your professional opinion, evaluating the way these academic-specialists (read: "nerds") handle their private interpersonal communications, seems to be predicated on the notion that climate scientists should know how to deal with constant criticism (presumably of the non-factual, science kind, because otherwise it would be handled!).
You are judging the way the institution is functioning while completely denying the realities of the environment in which it is functioning. Of course there will be internal dysfunction when all your experts have been personally and professionally attacked for months by parties who are hurt by this science. I'd imagine that their conduct is unprofessional because it's the only way to keep even climbing out of bed and going to work. Their output, as science, necessarily stands on it's own because that's what science does. My point (as you so well paraphrased in your first sentence) stands.
How is decarbonisation of the economy inevitable if the time to act never comes? Does the concept of "too late" not exist for you? Should we just keep waiting until it actually is too late? I think the moral panic and press to act quickly is essential to anything getting done, and it should never have taken this long.